58

Our CEO just posted a blog post to kick off 2020 and reflect on his first 90 days. You can see his blog post here and his Meta Stack Overflow post here. Please follow the second link to engage with him and the team about his post on MSO.

If you don't have a Stack Overflow account, or enough reputation to post there, the CMs and I will be here to forward or respond to your questions.

  • 59
    Thank you, Juan, for thinking to include and inform MSE about this. – Bryan Krause Jan 21 at 17:56
  • 32
    Please, add the [featured] tag here. – Victor Stafusa Jan 21 at 18:23
  • 9
    @VictorStafusa That would make it double-featured on Stack Overflow. This whole cross posting a link is very messy, and if it should be featured that should probably be MSE, not MSO, but now that's very awkward as the post is on MSO and featuring the link instead of the post is weird. – Erik A Jan 21 at 18:48
  • Or are unwilling to I guess. Rather ironically, I suspect MSO might be a better platform for me to ask 😁. – Journeyman Geek Jan 21 at 23:15
  • 28
    My reaction to that blog post is that it isn't even written to users of stack exchange products -- people who ask & answer questions on any stack exchange site (meta or regular). It's written to employees and investors and potential corporate customers. – dbc Jan 21 at 23:53
  • 3
    @ErikA Yes, but now no-one who frequents other Stack Exchanges will know that this discussion is happening. Removing the featured tag from the Stack Overflow and adding it here instead would solve the double feature problem – Jo King Jan 22 at 2:34
  • @dbc And that's perfectly fine. The SE network being profitable and healthy economically is in the best interest of both the community and the corporation. The main issue I see here is that the corporation seems to ignore the rest of the network, and focus on SO exclusively. – Von Huffman Jan 22 at 7:40
  • A lot of the answers here show that it would be useful to make some clarity on communication channels. Given the SE CEO appears to have strong opinions on their current efficiency, I expect some kind of assessment was performed, so it should be easy to provide at least an inventory. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/342193/… – Nemo Jan 22 at 13:36

13 Answers 13

126

This is all wrong. It's on Meta Stack Overflow, which is meant for Stack Overflow only.

It doesn't mention the rest of the network.

And I can't even post an answer under that MSO thread without 5 rep on SO.

This is the best way to tell me that if I don't use SO, I'm not important to you.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    The very first bullet point at the top of the article includes a link to the list of Stack Exchange sites. – LShaver Jan 21 at 17:08
  • 15
    @LShaver and? The SE sites users are still not able to give feedback from the thing that was/is supposed to be the place to. If Meta is demoted, which sure, it will be, why should MSO take its place? – Jenayah Jan 21 at 17:10
  • 1
    From the linked blog post: "What I ask of you—anyone reading this post—is to continue to grow with us, to give us feedback through our new feedback loops, and to continue to rely on Stack Overflow and the Stack Exchange network as the essential resource for exchanging ideas and information on technical topics." OTOH, what about the non-tech Stack Exchange sites? – PM 2Ring Jan 21 at 17:11
  • 1
    @Jenayah From the blog post: "To be clear, this does not mean channels like Meta will go away, but they need to grow to ensure that users are heard and responded to in a timely fashion." – PM 2Ring Jan 21 at 17:13
  • 29
    Don't worry, I have 127K rep there and yet StackOverflow successfully told me I'm not important. Just read the blog post. He literally addressed nothing. A waste of bits. – gdoron is supporting Monica Jan 21 at 17:52
  • 6
    About MSO/MSE for the post. Please don't get too hung up on it. Was deliberation and arguments made in each direction. If you don't want to reply on MSO, just reply on MSE. It will be read as well. - Yaakov Ellis in Tavern – Machavity Jan 21 at 20:48
  • I've been reading that question and a lot of comments and answers on MSO, and my opinion so far is that it is kind of a bookends -- in the beginning, there was only SO and all the other sites spawned from it, and in the end, chances are there will only be SO again. MSE was spawned from Uservoice quite a few ways after SO started, and MSO was split from it after all the other sites got their own metas, so maybe all of them will collapse into a single overmeta again. Still have to think about all this, though. – Frédéric Hamidi Jan 21 at 21:28
  • 11
    The question has been updated to clarify that people can participate in the discussion either here or on MSO and we will get answers as best we can. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. – Catija Jan 21 at 22:19
  • Thanks @Machavity. I posted that link downthread, but my comment was purged. Hopefully yours survives. – Michael - Where's Clay Shirky Jan 22 at 1:40
114

I have largely held my tongue over the past few months, but this blog post just makes it clear that you fundamentally do not get, or perhaps value, the community here. You write “the work we do would not be possible without the contributions of our incredible community” as though the community is taking “little actions” that help you do your job. You would not have a job without the community; none of the bullet points you boast of would exist without the community.

That’s the fundamental disconnect here. You write of Stack Overflow as though the company did the work, as though “Stack Overflow added over 2.8 million answers.” Stack Overflow didn’t add those answers; we did. And the funny thing is that we don’t work for you, so if you want to ask me to “to maintain a growth mindset” for you, you either need to start writing me checks, or you need to explain what’s in it for me. Hint: what’s in it for me has nothing to do with your investors or profits. Here, you’re asking us to grow with you for the sake of growth. Unless you give us equity, why should we care about your growth in the abstract? Surely there should be some other motivation for us, right? We know how growth benefits you; where is the explanation of why growth a good thing for us, the community? You tacked on a sentence about “visionary companies” at the end, but this entire blog post lacks any real vision beyond, to summarize, ‘more people should use SO more often.’ A desire for a hockey stick graph is not a vision.

And that’s a shame and a real missed opportunity, because I do strongly believe that Stack Overflow has an enormous role to play in training new generations of developers. SO becoming a more welcoming and inclusive place is important not just to this company and community, but to the entire profession. The world will make better software if SO is more welcoming and inclusive. From the community’s perspective, expanding “reach and engagement” isn’t about KPI metrics; it’s about who is a part of our community and how we interact with one another. How do we create the place where the next few million people are going to learn? How does the environment of that place shape the next generation of developers? Growth, both in numbers and the quality of our interactions, is obviously a part of the answers. And those are questions anyone who cares about the future of software development can dig into; answering that creates an actual vision that we can work toward together.

You also write “We learned that we needed much better channels to listen to our moderators and community members” days after laying off several of the staff members, with years of experience, best equipped to actually work with the community.

But I’ll finish by turning back to what Joel Spolsky said last April. Is this company going to be run by “psychopath-Silicon-Valley-executives who are just in it for themselves and their stock options?” Because if you just say “yes,” we can all save ourselves a lot of time and pain right now. Reading this blog post that’s ostensibly about vision and the community but is really all about metrics and ROIs and growth, it’s hard to conclude the answer isn’t “yes.”


Related questions on Meta.SO: Where's the vision? and Will Stack Overflow remain a site for "professional and enthusiast programmers?

| improve this answer | |
  • 17
    "Reading this blog post that’s ostensibly about vision and the community but is really all about metrics and ROIs and growth" this feels spot on to me. – Pureferret Jan 22 at 11:23
  • 2
    Yeah, funny to see how the company forgets that all the wonderful tools that they've built are worth nothing without the actual users contributing to the site. SE cannot be compared to something like Microsoft Office, as Excel is useful even if it only has one user in the entire world, while SE is meaningless unless it has tens of thousands of active users. – JonathanReez Jan 27 at 20:43
73

From the blog post:

To be clear, this does not mean channels like Meta will go away, but they need to grow to ensure that users are heard and responded to in a timely fashion.

Too bad, that the most activities of SE Inc. during the last months mainly shrank the Meta communities. All of them. Because so many formerly motivated users had enough, turned around and walked away.

Also note: this isn't a code base for some software product. Those, sometimes, need to be thrown out, and rewritten from scratch.

The CEO wants to grow feedback channels. Well, his company had one of the best user feedback systems in the world. The company allowed that to deteriorate, leading to hundreds, if not thousands of frustrated users leaving the channel.

And now, instead of fixing the channel you broke, you think that creating new ones will work? Doesn't sound too convincing to me. Especially given the fact that even those that are still around ... you lost our trust. You think a different channel will change anything about that?

Nonetheless: thanks for making it clear that the metas will stay. I will for sure stay to see how exactly all you plans will be communicated and implemented.

| improve this answer | |
  • 18
    I like this quote: "large scale community survey named Through The Loop". Maybe my memory fails me, but wasn't it like a couple of open questions about stuff you like and dislike drowned in some noise like age and race? And that thing is considered vastly superior to Meta it seems... – Athari - Make SE Awesome Again Jan 22 at 1:51
  • 2
    "Too bad, that the most activities of SE Inc. during the last months mainly shrank the Meta communities." not only that, there were specific steps taken to limit the reach of MetaSO, so it couldn't really draw as much new people, nor would the existing Meta community would be able to be as effective as a discussion for SO topics. Couple that very few from management even bothering with Meta any more it's mostly the CM team...which recently shrank. So, overall, if the expectation is for Meta to grow, it's either me or the management who are totally confused as to how. – VLAZ Jan 22 at 7:47
  • 4
    @Athari-MakeSEAwesomeAgain the memory does not fail you. It included questions I found completely inappropriate like what my racial background was. I forget exactly how the question was formulated. At any rate, I had three-fold reason to skip it 1. I did not think it is something that should be asked. 2. I found none of the answers applicable to me 3. I did not even want to identify with my "racial background" (or however it was formulated). – VLAZ Jan 22 at 7:52
  • 1
    You can always turn back, that survey is still open. Putting the stupid "racial background" aside, I really don't see how they think they can get much useful out of that survey. On the other hand, it will give them a huge pile of data. And then you let some AI seek over that stuff, and tell the AI what it should come back with ... and then you got the message you wanted to hear. – GhostCat Jan 22 at 8:10
52

I note that the Blog post is focused on Stack Overflow ...

... and that Stack Exchange got passing mention.

Sometimes, what one does not say speaks volumes.

For a "state of the future of the stack" post, which includes his point on the vision, I'll take a guess that the non-technical SEs will in time be trimmed. This Meta addresses something related to that.

For a business, that makes sense in terms of sticking with one's core competencies. There is also the matter of "returning to our roots" which a lot of businesses have had to do in order to remain effective in this increasingly competetive world.

That's how it came across, anyway.

And in the "everyone's an art critic" seat: the blog post was reasonably well written as corporate utterances go. (I had to write stuff like that in a previous career; glad that's in the past).

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    I had the same impression more or less. At least there's no current plans to get rid of the Network, apparently. – Rubiksmoose Jan 21 at 17:44
  • 5
    @Rubiksmoose That's good news in the short term, for non technical stacks. "we have no plans to change anything "at the moment" also speaks to what is not said. – KorvinStarmast Jan 21 at 17:45
  • 7
    What confuses things is that the company name was Stack Overflow originally, then changed to Stack Exchange, and then back to SO. So when he speaks about SO, he generally means the company... except in those areas where he means the tech site. Which doesn't help things – Machavity Jan 21 at 20:15
  • 2
    @Machavity The company is still officially Stack Exchange Inc, see the footer of any page. – curiousdannii Jan 22 at 4:30
  • @Rubiksmoose "not plans" might mean they've not settled on anything concrete even if they are discussing it. Also "at the moment" might mean until the end of this month. So, there are at least a couple of readings with a different meaning - they've not settled on exactly how to get rid of non-tech communities or they've settled but it won't be in the near future - might be in 3-4 months time. There has been enough empty promises that I've decided to stop SE the benefit of assuming good intentions. I'd be interpreting anything as sinister. At least then I can only be pleasantly surprised. – VLAZ Jan 22 at 8:02
  • 1
    Further danni's observation ... in the footer ... COMPANY, Stack Overflow, Stack Overflow Business , ... and then in small print ... site design / logo © 2020 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 4.0 with attribution required. rev 2020.1.22.35843 – KorvinStarmast Jan 22 at 12:00
42

So the takeaway from this is that Stack Overflow is the only Stack Exchange site that matters, that Stack Exchange is hoping that volunteer mods are mug enough to pick up the slack that the fired community managers will leave, and that essentially, the floggings will continue until morale improves.

I question the decisions made but I do appreciate the clear communication.

| improve this answer | |
  • 7
    as no community manager has yet to be replaced (unless I missed a memo) - yeah, seems that way. – KorvinStarmast Jan 21 at 21:07
  • 3
    If you're going to sell a tree, you have to chop off some of the deepest roots. – JJ for Popcorn and Monica Jan 21 at 21:54
  • 9
    @JJforPopcornandMonica if you cut off the deepest roots, you no longer have a tree, you have a log. – gbjbaanb Jan 21 at 21:57
  • 5
    @gbjbaanb but it's so much easier to move. If you have a buyer lined up, doing it fast when the leaves are still on and look nice, it's a big pay day that's so much smoother. Those roots can cause all kinds of trouble in the moving process. And the buyer might not even like 'em. Imagine the hole they'd have to dig. Much easier to take the top part and have some business school grad write up a sales pitch. – JJ for Popcorn and Monica Jan 21 at 22:05
39

Highlighted key points which are likely to be interesting for MSE regulars. The blog post focuses heavily on SO and Teams, with no menton of other communities, so this is probably the reason why the main discussion isn't here.

TL;DR of TL:DR:

  • Stats are great.
  • Finances are great.
  • Experience on SO is improving.
  • Meta stays.
  • News on mod council, alt solutions and training will be posted later.
  • Teams, Teams, Teams.
  • SO, SO, SO.
  • We listen.

TL;DR:

  • SO shows big numbers.
  • Links to sponsored(?) SO searches.
  • Teams, Jobs, Advertizing are printing money.
  • SO is widely known.
  • Community is great.
  • Personal story.
  • Everchanging landscape.
  • We need to expand.
  • "over the past several months, we had a lot of dialog with our community about how best to enforce and evolve our code of conduct"
  • We need to evolve channels of communication.
  • "large scale community survey named Through The Loop"
  • "this does not mean channels like Meta will go away"
  • "We’ve completed the process of defining how our moderator council will be structured, shared an internal framework for asking coworkers tough community questions, defined the important functions that would be best served by more scalable solutions than Meta, and built outlines of our new moderator training modules. By the end of this quarter, all of these initiatives will be shared publicly with you, our users."
  • Engagement, inclusion, communication.
  • Blog, newsletter, podcast.
  • "we cut the number of negative comments nearly in half" (?)
  • Advertizing, Talent, Teams.
  • Microsoft likes Teams. Teams is great. ROI is great. Integration with other services. Try Teams for free.
  • New team members.
  • Companies use SO as a support channel.
  • Mission, pillar.
  • Give us feedback.
| improve this answer | |
  • 12
    Am I the only one seeing the conflict between "Meta stays" and "more scalable solutions than Meta"? Does that mean it's around, just dead? – Peilonrayz Jan 21 at 17:58
  • 21
    @Tinkeringbell In general, I would agree that long blog posts full of information shouldn't be reduced to TL;DRs. However, the the blog post in question contains very little information relevant to MSE regulars. It's mostly talking about how things are great and will be even greater in vague terms, except for focus on Teams and SO. The only real factual news are that the Meta stays and actual news (on mod council etc.) will be posted later. Some people may find deciphering KPIs from text interesting, but this isn't presented as facts by the post's author. – Athari - Make SE Awesome Again Jan 21 at 18:32
  • 2
    @Peilonrayz not necessarily a conflict. In theory, you could have Meta and other means of producing feedback. In practice...well, we have Meta now and it feels about as useful as writing messages in a bottle. Maybe somebody would find it, maybe not. The fact that Meta stays has no relation to how much SE themselves would use it. We've seen that they basically don't right now, so if they literally do nothing other than keep the Meta hosted, that's still Meta staying. – VLAZ Jan 22 at 8:40
25

I'm not part of Stack Overflow so I don't matter.

That's the takeaway message here.

Anyone who wishes to engage with the CEO or his team has to be an active member of SO. The rest of us can post here and see if the gatekeepers deign to forward our posts. Which means the CEO won't be bothering to read anything here.

This puts it into perspective. Monica was an extremely experienced and valuable moderator on multiple sites, but not on SO. So the company's awful treatment of her (ongoing treatment I will add) and the huge uproar over it is just a minor annoyance for the company to slap down as needed. Firing Shog and Robert and losing Jon is just a little trim off the top. Doesn't matter in the long run. And we moderators don't matter either.

Of course the company needs to focus more resources on the larger segments and on places that will bring it profit. I get that and don't have a problem with it. But why build these amazing communities and nurture them for years, only to watch it all burn?

It doesn't have to be this way. It still doesn't. Though I've pretty much lost all faith at this point.

I worked hard for a year, coming here every day, answering questions, making posts, welcoming newcomers, all so I could give back to SE. Then I was elected as a moderator and it was amazing. Until it wasn't. The company never had my back. They've abandoned me and every other non-SO user here. And none of it matters to them.

At least now we know.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    And you know what's funny? The CEO has profiles showing activity on "the worplace" and "space exploration", but his SO profile is empty. – dim Jan 22 at 18:28
  • @dimlostfaithinSE Any individual staff can & usually will have one or more favorite stacks. Some staff people were even moderators first. But this isn't about "let's keep our favorites around." It's about focusing resources on what makes the company money & gives it prestige. I'm fine with that. I mean if the company goes under, all this goes away anyway. I just don't want them to burn down the less profitable parts in the process. They've spent far more hours & emotional energy on this than they could have just by saying "sorry" & fixing it. The sorry is the hard part & they've done that. – Cyn says make Monica whole Jan 22 at 21:39
  • 1
    Cyn, your last 3 paragraphs so perfectly capture how I feel. Well, except for being elected a mod - but "coming here every day, answering questions, making posts, welcoming newcomers": absolutely! I feel like a jilted lover who bitterly realises how redundant they now are. – Chappo Hasn't Forgotten Monica Jan 23 at 6:15
  • 1
    @ChappoSaysSEDuddedMonica Thank you. And yeah. It's like none of it ever mattered. – Cyn says make Monica whole Jan 23 at 16:27
23

During my first three months at the company between October and December of 2019, I (...) spent a significant amount of time outside the office speaking with (...) community members.

The fact that such communication seems to have been targeted at just a few, possibly done mostly with Teams customers, and the fact that it didn't seem to be done on Meta makes me wonder. The CEO does not use the company's own main tool for communication with its user base. The subtle message here is that Meta will continue to lose relevance within the company, even if there is an attempt to appease by saying Meta will continue existing and that it needs to "evolve" (whatever that means).

The fact that the blog post is so aimed at SO, and the fact that the official CEO post was done on MSO and not here, makes me wonder if non-technical/non-programming sites may end up being discontinued at some point. I understand that SO and Jobs are the cash cow of SE, and business is business, but I'm sad anyway. I would just like to know what the vision is for the future of the majority of sites in the network.

| improve this answer | |
  • 8
    Meta is no longer the main tool for communication with the userbase. We're 0.015% of the userbase according to staff, so the fact that we get no attention and no communication is rather self explanatory. – Magisch Jan 22 at 8:24
21

Gosh. I saw the headline and thought "at last, SE is responding to all the recent issues and controversy".

But it turns out it is a total fluff piece saying how great SE is, how important community involvement is, without appearing to even reference said issues at all.

This person has been in charge 90 days. It seems to be about 90 days since all this kicked off. Is that an unfair coincidence to point out?

| improve this answer | |
  • 11
    Let's put it that way: I doubt that the new CEO had much to do with "things kicking off". But the number of observations that we could make to convince us "the new CEO tries to resolve the mess" ... very close to 0 methinks. – GhostCat Jan 22 at 13:20
  • I believe I had my timelines slightly wrong so apologies. – Mr. Boy Jan 22 at 14:11
20

Qn: Does "Meta" refer to Meta.SE or Meta.SO or Meta sites in general?

I'm not sure what "Meta" refers to here; it might be meta.StackOverflow, rather than Meta.StackExchange, or meta in general. The context is Stack Overflow (its title is Scripting the Future of Stack Overflow).

Qn: Will Meta stay?

I realize others believe it says "meta will stay", but I didn't find where it unequivocally say this. In fact, it repeatedly affirms Meta will change (into what?). This may simply be corporate rebranding of "closed down" (e.g. it "evolves" into The Loop). I guess we'll know soon...

By the end of this quarter, all of these initiatives will be shared publicly with you, our users.


Let's look...

We learned that we needed much better channels to listen to our moderators and community members. We have not evolved the existing channels of engagement for power users in our community, like Meta, or articulated how we intended to make improvements going forward. This has caused friction as our user base and business have rapidly grown. We acknowledge these issues, apologize for our mistakes, and have plans for improving in the future.

Quoting:

  • We have not evolved the existing channels...
  • ...have plans for improving in the future.

It does not say Meta will stay. It affirms plans that Meta will change.

Most importantly, we kicked off a key large scale community survey named Through The Loop and invited our entire community to share their suggestions, product feature requests, and ideas for how Stack Overflow should evolve more broadly. We’ve heard consistent feedback from you regarding key topics like question and answer quality, welcomingness and inclusion, and discovery for relevant questions and answers. All of this is in pursuit of new and more productive ways to work with and listen to our community in the next era of the company. We want to serve all of the millions of people who use Stack Overflow, not just those who know the most about how the site has worked in the past. To be clear, this does not mean channels like Meta will go away, but they need to grow to ensure that users are heard and responded to in a timely fashion.

  • ...new and more productive ways to work with and listen to our community...

  • ...this does not mean channels like Meta will go away, but they need to grow to ensure that users are heard and responded to in a timely fashion.

There's a lot of hedging: if someone wanted to say "Meta will not go away" they would write "Meta will not go away". Instead, this says:

  1. "this does not mean channels like Meta will go away": logically, not(X implies Y) does not imply not(Y) [where Y = "Meta will go away"], and
  2. "channels like Meta" (and not simply "Meta"); I suspect The Loop is considered a channel like Meta.

It affirms a need for Meta to change.

We’ve completed the process of defining how our moderator council will be structured, shared an internal framework for asking coworkers tough community questions, defined the important functions that would be best served by more scalable solutions than Meta, and built outlines of our new moderator training modules. By the end of this quarter, all of these initiatives will be shared publicly with you, our users.

  • ...defined the important functions that would be best served by more scalable solutions than Meta...

It affirms a on-progress process for Meta to change.

| improve this answer | |
  • 9
    Worth pointing out that Meta staying doesn't mean much by itself. If nobody from SE uses Meta, then it stays but...so what? If a t̶r̶e̶e feedback f̶a̶l̶l̶s shows up in t̶h̶e̶ ̶f̶o̶r̶e̶s̶t Meta and nobody is around to h̶e̶a̶r read it, does it make a̶ ̶s̶o̶u̶n̶d any difference? – VLAZ Jan 22 at 8:50
19

There's an apparent contradiction, at least to a significant extent, in the blog post between where it stated

To be clear, this does not mean channels like Meta will go away, but they need to grow to ensure that users are heard and responded to in a timely fashion.

and the second last paragraph's last sentence where there's

..., to give us feedback through our new feedback loops, ...

I realize I should not read too much into this later sentence fragment, as it may just be poorly worded or even a mistake, but it seems the CEO is at, the minimum, emphasizing providing feedback through the new "feedback loops".

As the Nov. 25, 2019 blog post Introducing “The Loop”: A Foundation in Listening indicated, and the Will Meta Stack Exchange be removed now? post & its answers expanded on, it seems the company is planning to at some point implement new feedback mechanisms (which is what I assume the "feedback loops" is referring to) and significantly limiting, or even completely stopping, the use of this meta site for any feedback.

The past few years, and especially the last 5 or so months, have shown the company is not apparently paying much attention to what anybody writes here. Also, their official communications to here have been very few, and then mostly "corporate-speak", e.g., David Fullerton's An apology to our community, and next steps and, especially, the earlier, now deleted, Sara Chipps' An Update to our Community and an Apology. This indicates to me that the first quote is likely just mostly more "corporate-speak", with the real message being the second one.

I appreciate the CEO is communicating with us. However, I hope that the CEO's future messages to us, along with those from any employees writing other official company messages, will be more direct, clear and non-contradictory. If he truly wants to help the company win back the trust of the community, this is, in my opinion, just one of the required steps.

| improve this answer | |
16

As someone who only joined StackOverflow as a community because I had to in order to be able to become part of the moderator team, the read was disappointing in many ways.

Firstly, it reads as though StackOverflow (the community) was all that is of interest to the CEO and his whole development team. Communication with the community, acquisition, welcoming, and inclusion of state-of-the-art professionals in order to keep the community useful etc....all this is all but exclusive to the community of StackOverflow and poses challenges to all communities in the StackExchange Network. Should we infer that all these sites and their communities and moderators are not of interest to the CEO and the company? Since this blog post popped up as a must-read on Philosophy. SE, this feels borderline cynical.

Secondly, while the CEO has liabilities with regard to certain economic conditions, one cannot speak of how great one relies on communication with the community and at the same time sack some of the community leaders and speakers who have been held in highest esteem by the community. But again, maybe they've been too mundane in their interests and activities so that the software development focus just let them seem completely outlandish and unimportant. I mean, obviously the CoC changes have been made in close coordination with the community as well, if I read the blog text correctly (which one, which part exactly? MSE in general and a certain ex-mod in particular have been quite overtaken by the events in my book).

Thirdly, you aim to retain and develop the important role of SO in the overall profession of software development. That's fine. But why, exactly, does it seem to be more promising to completely put the working structures upside down (probably losing much of the existing user base, ie. the important few users which do the important job you repeatedly praised as being so important for the company's success) instead of, say, extending working structures like "jobs" to other communities like Math.SO? What is it, except activism and new employees proving themselves to be important by using language and topics which sound important, which necessitates putting the overall quality of all new StackExchange Network content at stake for the sake of - hopefully - drawing some new software developers away from emerging knowledge clusters and into sharing their knowledge and investing their time for free on SO so that their edge in a competitive job market is given away?

Be it as it may, I have read a blog post which, other than most, if not all, blog posts before, does not feel like the person who wrote it cared for my contribution and time or the communities I am part of, like, at all. At least the pieces fall into their place when looking into recent events: It's about being hip and diverse and attractive enough for the cool kids (which is the basic message of the whole post). But it is basically just burning bridges in the hope of catching up to developments which are a) both hard to foresee where they are going to end up and b) faster than huge corporate (and especially community) structures can possibly adequately be adapted to by force.

Philip Klöcking, elected moderator on Philosophy.SE

| improve this answer | |
  • 4
    Yeah, that's a pretty clear read I have read a blog post which, other than most, if not all, blog posts before, does not feel like the person who wrote it cared for my contribution and time or the communities I am part of, like, at all – KorvinStarmast Jan 22 at 12:02
12

I find this quite bizarre:

Every day, users answer thousands of questions on topics like cloud technology, container orchestration, and machine learning. There is an ever growing trove of knowledge on Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud Platform, and Microsoft Azure.

Why focus so much on a single technology, and even name three specific suppliers? Sounds like free advertising for those companies, or (worse) what some politicians do when they're asked about innovation and they've never spent any effort studying the matter: "oh yes, [something something] [desperately check notes] the cloud and AI!".

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .